2014-06-29 1:13 GMT+02:00, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com>:

> Turbo Pascal has a smartlinker while Turbo C does not.

Actually, I wasn't aware that Pascal compilers are that smart - for
example: while searching for some more info, just discovered a Pascal
compiler for... 8051, which is very memory-constrained:

Found some more info at http://turbopascal.org/

It was always a bit strange to me, that I had - well, I still have ;)
- a few quite useful Pascal compilers for such little machine, like
Commodore 64, and just one C compiler (Power C), which is cumbersome
and hard to work with. C compiler - for the language being "closer to
machine" than Pascal or BASIC - theoretically should be less
resource-hungry (just like Forth compilers).

> Check the main program .OBJ with some kind of dump utility  (similar
> to *nix "size"), or just compare its pure .ASM output, or read the
> linker map. That (main .OBJ, code + data) size compared to the final
> .EXE should give you an idea of which party is to blame.  :-)

Indeed I noticed even earlier, that OBJ is of "decent size" (just a
little more than 4 KB), and it must be a linker, which "glues" some
additional library to final EXE. Most probably because I had to
include dos.h (int86 function in use).

Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition
Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to